I see no value in atheism

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes I did assume that....so why do atheists not want to understand the cosmos?

It's the principle involved...like good and evil...they are complementary opposites...you can't have one without the other...one defines the other and vice versa..do you understand....ying-yang, electron-positron, gnostic, agnostic, theist-atheist....get the idea....that's why on RF, there is never ending debates between atheists and theists....you need each other to feel whole...

The opinion that God exists is arrived at by choosing, like all opinions, and any choice obviously would require at least 2 alternatives. So then you would have the the option God exists, and God does not exist, and when you choose the option God does exist, then you have expressed the opinion God does exist. But one can obviously also refrain from deciding on the issue, refrain from forming an opinion on the matter.

But generally most all atheists argue that they must be forced by evidence to a conclusion on the issue if God exists or not. They have no evidence, therefore they lack belief in God. But that is a category error, same as social darwinism is a category error. And you can see atheists make the same category error in regards to the existence of love. They conclude love does exist, but they conclude this forced by evidence, they do not reach the conclusion by choosing it. So generally atheists have a problem in dealing with any kind of subjectivity at all, and belief in God is just 1 more subjective notion they fail to comprehend.

An exception to this is for instance the atheist Katherine Hepburn. When asked about religion and morality and stuff she replied she knew right and wrong by her emotions. So that she felt murder was disgusting, unjust etc. Reaching a conclusion by expressing her emotion, with free will, thus choosing the answer.

 

[leibowde84]

The opinion that God exists is arrived at by choosing, like all opinions, and any choice obviously would require at least 2 alternatives. So then you would have the the option God exists, and God does not exist, and when you choose the option God does exist, then you have expressed the opinion God does exist. But one can obviously also refrain from deciding on the issue, refrain from forming an opinion on the matter.

But generally most all atheists argue that they must be forced by evidence to a conclusion on the issue if God exists or not. They have no evidence, therefore they lack belief in God. But that is a category error, same as social darwinism is a category error. And you can see atheists make the same category error in regards to the existence of love. They conclude love does exist, but they conclude this forced by evidence, they do not reach the conclusion by choosing it. So generally atheists have a problem in dealing with any kind of subjectivity at all, and belief in God is just 1 more subjective notion they fail to comprehend.

An exception to this is for instance the atheist Katherine Hepburn. When asked about religion and morality and stuff she replied she knew right and wrong by her emotions. So that she felt murder was disgusting, unjust etc. Reaching a conclusion by expressing her emotion, with free will, thus choosing the answer.

I think this is the difference between knowledge and belief. Knowledge is the attainment or understanding of truth. Belief is the ability to "choose" to think something is true without the sufficient evidence to consider it the knowledge of truth. I think that most atheists, whether they admit it or not, have the ability to choose belief without sufficient evidence, but they "choose" not to. In other words, you seem to be disregarding the "choice" that they all make in not "believing" or having "faith" in things that may or may not be true. In essence, they "choose" to play it safe in not assuming anything without sufficient evidence.

 

[Willamena]

Because disbelief means "no belief" and to have no belief in something doesn't require you to even know that that something exists.

But Artie, we who have tea pots floating around Mars to defend ourselves from such beliefs, can't believe that. It's all about the grammar: a verb needs an object, in English at least.

Is it necessary for an isolated amazonian tribesman to know what a car is in order to not have one? He's managed to not have a car all his life and that even without knowing what a car is. How many things has he managed to not have, how many different beliefs has he managed to not have but other people have without knowing they existed?

Cars are not essential to knowing; beliefs are, and negated beliefs are simply the belief negated, not eliminated.

 

[Stevicus]

It's all about the grammar: a verb needs an object, in English at least.

Not if it's an intransitive verb.

 

[Willamena]

My argument is that "atheist" surely is not the same as "strong atheist", as "strong atheist" (deducted using simple linguistics) is a subcategory of atheist.

Is that the only reason, or is there some rationale involved?

According to your definition, "weak atheism" and "strong atheism" could not both be considered as subcategories.

They are separate categories.

 

[Willamena]

Not if it's an intransitive verb.

Unspoken, implied objects still count.

 

[leibowde84]

Is that the only reason, or is there some rationale involved?


They are separate categories.

My rationale is based on linguistic necessity. Both "strong" and "weak" atheists are "atheists" by definition. Thus, the definition for "atheism" must include both "strong" and "weak" atheists.

The same goes for "agnostic theists", "conservative christians", "white bread", etc. The general term must include it's subcategories.

 

[Willamena]

My rationale is founded in an inability to believe in non-existent things. There are beliefs, but no not-beliefs. There are cars, but no not-cars. Hence I am incapable of dividing the world into those who hold beliefs and those who hold not-beliefs.

The negated belief is the belief negated, nothing more.

 

[leibowde84]

My rationale is founded in an inability to believe in non-existent things. There are beliefs, but no not-beliefs. There are cars, but no not-cars. Hence I am incapable of dividing the world into those who hold beliefs and those who hold not-beliefs.

The negated belief is the belief negated, nothing more.

So, you don't think it is possible to lack a belief in God without believing that God doesn't exist? Because, I think if you met my Mom, who surely fits that mold now, she would change your mind.

It's like aliens. I don't believe in extraterestrial life, but I certainly do not believe that extraterestrial life is impossible. I don't have a negative or positive belief about it. I think that both options are possible.

 

[Willamena]

So, you don't think it is possible to lack a belief in God without believing that God doesn't exist? Because, I think if you met my Mom, who surely fits that mold now, she would change your mind.

It's like aliens. I don't believe in extraterestrial life, but I certainly do not believe that extraterestrial life is impossible. I don't have a negative or positive belief about it. I think that both options are possible.

When I read those words, they are interpreted in accord with my understandings. So, while I do think it's possible to lack a belief in God, I'm quite certain we are not talking about the same thing.

Extra-terrestrial life is possible, but that's allowing for a thing, not a not-thing.

 

[leibowde84]

When I read those words, they are interpreted in accord with my understandings. So, while I do think it's possible to lack a belief in God, I'm quite certain we are not talking about the same thing.

Extra-terrestrial life is possible, but that's allowing for a thing, not a not-thing.

But, isn't "lacking belief" the same as "allowing for a thing"? Isn't that what weak atheists are doing?

 

[Willamena]

But, isn't "lacking belief" the same as "allowing for a thing"? Isn't that what weak atheists are doing?

I don't think it is, they are two different things. I think this article describes lack of belief well: Lacking belief in a god | CARM | Atheism :

...they have no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue.

 

[McBell]

I don't think it is, they are two different things. I think this article describes lack of belief well: Lacking belief in a god | CARM | Atheism :

I do not understand how lacking a belief against is not the same as allowing for the possibility for.

If they are not allowing for the possibility for, then they would not be lacking a belief against.

 

[Willamena]

I do not understand how lacking a belief against is not the same as allowing for the possibility for.

If they are not allowing for the possibility for, then they would not be lacking a belief against.

I don't understand how they would be the same thing.

Is it possible there are tea pots oribiting Mars (one for everyone who understands Russell's argument)? Except for the one I put there myself, no, it isn't.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't understand how they would be the same thing.

Is it possible there are tea pots oribiting Mars (one for everyone who understands Russell's argument)? Except for the one I put there myself, no, it isn't.

Right, so that is a declarative negative belief. You are saying that you don't believe it is possible that there are tea-pots orbiting Mars. That is not what weak atheists are doing in relation to God's existence. They are merely saying, I don't have a belief on the matter.

 

[McBell]

I don't understand how they would be the same thing.

Is it possible there are tea pots oribiting Mars (one for everyone who understands Russell's argument)? Except for the one I put there myself, no, it isn't.

Yes it is possible.
You provide that possibility yourself.

 

[Willamena]

Yes it is possible.
You provide that possibility yourself.

How is it made possible, that an imagined thing be real?

 

[Willamena]

Right, so that is a declarative negative belief. You are saying that you don't believe it is possible that there are tea-pots orbiting Mars. That is not what weak atheists are doing in relation to God's existence. They are merely saying, I don't have a belief on the matter.

It's what strong atheists say. "I don't believe in God."

 

[McBell]

How is it made possible, that an imagined thing be real?

you asked:

Is it possible there are tea pots oribiting Mars (one for everyone who understands Russell's argument)?​

You then provide for the possibility yourself:

Except for the one I put there myself​

 

[Willamena]

you asked:

Is it possible there are tea pots oribiting Mars (one for everyone who understands Russell's argument)?​

You then provide for the possibility yourself:

Except for the one I put there myself​

The one I put there myself is the one of my imagination.